This is another atheist misrepresentation and trying to put words in the other person's mouth. I thought you people were about facts?

For the most part, we are. But we are also human, not vulcans. As PZ Myers said, "We have clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe."

So if an atheist does not quite live up to your standards of truthiness, you'll have to pardon him or her and kindly efrain from painting all of us with the same brush. Similarly, all you people, meaning xians, are supposed to be meek and love your enemies and offer your other cheek to people who hit you. But outside the nun who taught my catechism class, I've not run into very many of those. Your (all of you xians, not you specifically) answer to that is something something just human something something fallen world blah blah blah.

Not that Dloubet's point was wrong, even if he indulged in hyperbole. I understand being irritated by hyperbole. I dislike it myself. But you should still answer the point he's making. If the OT was crap, as you seem to say it is in not so many words, then the NT has no basis. That does answer your OP.

Was Jesus a Christian? or the "Jewish messiah" from the OT? Was the NT written before or after the death of Jesus?if it is AFTER the death of Jesus,then early "Christians" invented the NT after Jesus was long dead.

Jesus HAD no knowledge of the NT. Just because he is quoted saying many things,does not mean he dictated them.

Please provide your proof that Jesus was a "Christian" and not the Jewish messiah of the OT

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

This is another atheist misrepresentation and trying to put words in the other person's mouth. I thought you people were about facts?

For the most part, we are. But we are also human, not vulcans. As PZ Myers said, "We have clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe."

So if an atheist does not quite live up to your standards of truthiness, you'll have to pardon him or her and kindly efrain from painting all of us with the same brush. Similarly, all you people, meaning xians, are supposed to be meek and love your enemies and offer your other cheek to people who hit you. But outside the nun who taught my catechism class, I've not run into very many of those. Your (all of you xians, not you specifically) answer to that is something something just human something something fallen world blah blah blah.

Not that Dloubet's point was wrong, even if he indulged in hyperbole. I understand being irritated by hyperbole. I dislike it myself. But you should still answer the point he's making. If the OT was crap, as you seem to say it is in not so many words, then the NT has no basis. That does answer your OP.

It's amazing how you atheists turn conversations. I recently posted a survey that stated atheists were not well trusted.I would like you to point out where I said the OT was "crap"

Was Jesus a Christian? or the "Jewish messiah" from the OT? Was the NT written before or after the death of Jesus?if it is AFTER the death of Jesus,then early "Christians" invented the NT after Jesus was long dead.

Jesus HAD no knowledge of the NT. Just because he is quoted saying many things,does not mean he dictated them.

Please provide your proof that Jesus was a "Christian" and not the Jewish messiah of the OT

I never said that Jesus was a Christian and not the Jewish Messiah. You will have to ask someone who made that claim to back it up.

<snip> But yet atheists continue to “beat the dead horse” claiming that the Bible is NOT true and there is NO God and cite these outdated laws as a source of reference. Why?<snip>

It would be illogical to use a storybook to prove that something does not exist, right?[1] But it is fun to point out the ludicrous stuff in the OT. When it is told that the Bible is the word of god, then by default the god becomes just as ludicrous. That is the general idea, use the OT to show that the god is a sadistic creep. Now if YHWH's followers don't care much about the god's rules, add incompetency to YHWH's attributes.

Ludicrous, sadistic, creepy and incompetent. Its always fun to beat the dead horse.

BTW 12 Monkees, You made this claim "Jesus was a Jew and I would expect that he require his followers to be faithful to the Jewish doctorines. Christianity has really nothing to do with Jesus,as it was "invented" long after his "death"« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:16:42 PM by 12 Monkeys »

<snip> But yet atheists continue to “beat the dead horse” claiming that the Bible is NOT true and there is NO God and cite these outdated laws as a source of reference. Why?<snip>

It would be illogical to use a storybook to prove that something does not exist, right?[1] But it is fun to point out the ludicrous stuff in the OT. When it is told that the Bible is the word of god, then by default the god becomes just as ludicrous. That is the general idea, use the OT to show that the god is a sadistic creep. Now if YHWH's followers don't care much about the god's rules, add incompetency to YHWH's attributes.

Ludicrous, sadistic, creepy and incompetent. Its always fun to beat the dead horse.

Matt 5[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 11[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Luke 16[16] The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.[17] And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Christianity is terribly ambiguous about whether the nitty-gritty of law still holds, because the Catholic church chose to deify Paul, who said in Galatians, that we should trust Jesus, without actually quoting what Jesus said. Since Paul had some other warped ideas about Jesus, we have no idea whether Paul was lying, when he said we should trust Jesus, to abandon the Jewish law.

Throughout the gospel of Matthew, which appears to be written, or at least edited by those who opposed Paul, Jesus only criticizes the hand washing rules, as being invented laws. Although he quite obviously specifies some new super-laws, he doesn't criticize any of the old ones. He appears impotent to say anything against Jewish law, and ultimately gets killed by mere mortals.

Matthew says that "the prophets and the law prophesied until John", while Luke, a supporter of Paul, changes that statement, to look like the law ends with Jesus. However, Luke still utters the same statement as Matthew: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

The effect is that Luke just contradicts himself. Luke admits to being a compiler of hearsay, rather than a witness. The problem is that most scholars reckon that Mark/Matthew was written first, so it looks like Luke fudged it. However, both series of books show signs of being derived from each other, and being edited asynchronously, in ways we will never get to the bottom of, because Christians deleted all the original works.

Which one is correct?

Paul admits in Galatians that the mainstream Jewish Christian sect is still trying to follow Jewish laws, and that they are headed by Jesus "brother", James, whatever that means. Scholars don't know if that was Jesus' real brother, or a spiritual follower. If it was Jesus' real brother, then he was still trying to follow Jewish law, by Paul's admission. This means that other witnesses of Jesus, came away with the distinct impression that you were supposed to follow the whole law. You'd think Jesus would have mentioned it to them.

When you read the gospels, you don't come away with the impression that Jesus is undermining the Jewish laws. Due to a quirk in the origins of the revolution, the Pharisaic Jews were trying to implement changes to the rules, without conflicting with them. Sure, some of them might have thought that the ancient laws were ridiculous, but the conservatives thought you should follow them all.

The next problem for Christians is how you are saved. Are you saved by works or faith?

Matthew gives the impression that you are saved by being righteous, and following the law, and that there is a hierarchy in heaven "he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven". That means we are not equals in heaven. The people who followed less of the law, and were least Jewish, will be low ranking.

Jesus was a God, who couldn't get his message across, by direct witnesses. The gospels, which claim to be a witness to Jesus, were written after Paul, (probably by non-witnesses) and contradict Paul (who admits he wasn't a witness). They even warn about Paul, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Both the Gospels and Paul try to get the last word in.

The result is that Christians follow Paul's advice, that you can adhere to whatever laws you feel are correct. Paul typically argues his case, using cherry picked snippets of OT, rather than direct quotes from Jesus. "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." By Paul's logic, since the law curses you, the solution is not to follow it. Having abandoned it, then there must be another solution. (Obviously) The one that Paul sells to you.

Paul then changes his mind, between Galatians and Romans. Many scholars have wondered if he is contradicting himself, but a conclusion can be made, that his epistles are not formal works, but ad hoc responses to pastoral emergencies.http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/law.pdf

Therefore Paul's opinion is not really specified properly. You have to guess what he really believed.

If the OT is just a pack of lies to you, then what is it doing in the bible?

This is another atheist misrepresentation and trying to put words in the other person's mouth. I thought you people were about facts?

Not pack of lies.... He, like most Christians, just pick and choose what he wants to follow. duh.

Sorry Garja, again you give another atheist misrepresentation. Christians follow Jesus. They've picked and chosen! Atheists, on the other hand, believe whatever they want. They can make their own rules. Their moral code is whatever they want. That sounds to me like picking and choosing, doesn't it?

Jesus was a Jew and so were the disciples, They followed the system of festivals as prescribed by the OT including a seder before jesus died (or juts a meal if you follow John!) The jerusalem Christians carried on worshipping as Jews but added Jesus to those they worshipped. They went to the Temple and so on.

The big split comes at Acts 15 when Paul asks the Jerusalem Church how he should treat his new gentile converts. Were they to be subject the law of Moses and by circumcised and follow the Law? the result, as we can read restricted them to not eating meat offered to idols and refraining them from eating blood. Thus, for gentiles from that time, these two are the only matters of the Jewish Law that they are to obey.

So, to get to your original question, the examples you give are not relevant to Gentile Christians - though this is not the import of Jesus who seemed to think all the Laws were to be obeyed. So, a question for you, Holybuckets,

why do we even have a holy book with the oT in? If all the rules and restrictions in the OT are not needed and if the NT has everything one needs, why not just dispense with the OT.

Why do Chrisitians keep quoting from the 10 Commandments and other of the Laws in the Torah when Christians these days, and everyone else too apart from Jews, are not constrained by these Laws?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Jesus was a Jew and so were the disciples, They followed the system of festivals as prescribed by the OT including a seder before jesus died (or juts a meal if you follow John!) The jerusalem Christians carried on worshipping as Jews but added Jesus to those they worshipped. They went to the Temple and so on.

The big split comes at Acts 15 when Paul asks the Jerusalem Church how he should treat his new gentile converts. Were they to be subject the law of Moses and by circumcised and follow the Law? the result, as we can read restricted them to not eating meat offered to idols and refraining them from eating blood. Thus, for gentiles from that time, these two are the only matters of the Jewish Law that they are to obey.

So, to get to your original question, the examples you give are not relevant to Gentile Christians - though this is not the import of Jesus who seemed to think all the Laws were to be obeyed. So, a question for you, Holybuckets,

why do we even have a holy book with the oT in? If all the rules and restrictions in the OT are not needed and if the NT has everything one needs, why not just dispense with the OT.

Why do Chrisitians keep quoting from the 10 Commandments and other of the Laws in the Torah when Christians these days, and everyone else too apart from Jews, are not constrained by these Laws?

Good and deep questions for sure. Here's a link that may help answer some of your questions:

Because of 2 Timothy 3:16, of course. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

I know most Christians simply use this as justification for picking and choosing scriptures out of the Bible that they want to accept, while ignoring others that "do not apply anymore" or that have "gone away", but 2 Timothy 3:16 makes no distinction between these 'outdated' scriptures and the ones that still apply. Note that it does not say, "All Scripture[1]..." And before you try to split hairs about the language, what is a law if not something to rebuke and correct bad behavior? Indeed, that's the whole purpose of laws.

1. Christians are not Jews. If the Jews want to believe God dictated those laws to them, more power to em. It's hard to believe in this day and age, but most of them are common sense laws- for the day. Not our day. We have many ridiculous laws in America. I'm sure at one time you have looked them up. Do a Google search for ridiculous laws, you will find a bunch of antiquated laws that are funny now.

You failed to answer the question. I asked "Do you believe that god himself dictated all those old testament laws?" This question only required a simple Yes or No answer.

Quote

2. I believe morality is between you and God. There are many things in the Bible that are considered sin. But in the end, everyone is a sinner and will be judged.

Again, you've failed to answer the question. Does the bible spends a lot of time on subjective morality, rather than objective morality? Again, the question only requires a simple Yes or No respond.

Quote

3. I would not say the Bible wasted anytime, and I don't consider them nonsense. Those Mosaic Laws were beneficial back then.

Then what are they? Apparently, they are irrelevant. The bible gives them a LOT of time and attention (including stoning a man to death for a trivial offense), yet they are now unbeneficial and outdated. No matter what you say, I still can't imagine that it sits well with you that your bible is full of material that are nonsense, trivial, or just plain outdated. I mean, geez, even the vast majority of believer agree that a large chunk of that book is best ignored...

1. Christians are not Jews. If the Jews want to believe God dictated those laws to them, more power to em. It's hard to believe in this day and age, but most of them are common sense laws- for the day. Not our day. We have many ridiculous laws in America. I'm sure at one time you have looked them up. Do a Google search for ridiculous laws, you will find a bunch of antiquated laws that are funny now.

You failed to answer the question. I asked "Do you believe that god himself dictated all those old testament laws?" This question only required a simple Yes or No answer.

Quote

2. I believe morality is between you and God. There are many things in the Bible that are considered sin. But in the end, everyone is a sinner and will be judged.

Again, you've failed to answer the question. Does the bible spends a lot of time on subjective morality, rather than objective morality? Again, the question only requires a simple Yes or No respond.

Quote

3. I would not say the Bible wasted anytime, and I don't consider them nonsense. Those Mosaic Laws were beneficial back then.

Then what are they? Apparently, they are irrelevant. The bible gives them a LOT of time and attention (including stoning a man to death for a trivial offense), yet they are now unbeneficial and outdated. No matter what you say, I still can't imagine that it sits well with you that your bible is full of material that are nonsense, trivial, or just plain outdated. I mean, geez, even the vast majority of believer agree that a large chunk of that book is best ignored...

Thanks Aaron,Since you were not happy with my responses the first time, maybe I can attempt to answer them again.1. I do not know all the Old Testament Laws and it is beyond my scope to accurately answer what God did or did not do. I apologize for know knowing everything God does.2. I have never studied subjective or objective morality. Perhaps you can give me your thoughts to educate me.3. What are the Mosaic Laws? Here is a link you can study. http://www.ehow.com/info_10022255_were-mosaic-laws.html

Because of 2 Timothy 3:16, of course. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

I know most Christians simply use this as justification for picking and choosing scriptures out of the Bible that they want to accept, while ignoring others that "do not apply anymore" or that have "gone away", but 2 Timothy 3:16 makes no distinction between these 'outdated' scriptures and the ones that still apply. Note that it does not say, "All Scripture[1]..." And before you try to split hairs about the language, what is a law if not something to rebuke and correct bad behavior? Indeed, that's the whole purpose of laws.

except all these icky Old Testament laws which are irrelevant to Christians

Its worth asking, too, what Paul was referring to when he penned these words to Timothy. At that time, the only part of the NT extant was a few letters of Paul. There were no gospels. My guess is that he could only have been referring to the OT.

BTW 12 Monkees, You made this claim "Jesus was a Jew and I would expect that he require his followers to be faithful to the Jewish doctorines. Christianity has really nothing to do with Jesus,as it was "invented" long after his "death"« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:16:42 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Would you care to back up your statement? Or are you just "trolling"?

So the IDEA that he was the Jewish messiah of the OT is false?

Well modern day Jews don't believe he was ANYTHING,that's why we still have the Jewish faith. So maybe you are right,maybe Jesus was just another in a long line of false prophets from those early years.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2013, 12:05:54 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The Laws of Moses or the Torah Laws are found mostly in the first five books of the Old Testament. Laws like: it's a sin to eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:12,Deuteronomy 14:10); or an uncircumcised Kohen must not eat Terumah (Exodus 12:48). There are many more examples and even the Jews admit these laws do not apply anymore. The Jews claim that since the destruction of the second Temple, many of the laws have gone away (their words (Jews) not mine). But yet atheists continue to “beat the dead horse” claiming that the Bible is NOT true and there is NO God and cite these outdated laws as a source of reference. Why?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Commandments

For me it's not the claim of Jews, but Christians. The very things we criticise are based on real beliefs, the argument may not apply to all Christians, but that doesn't make any of it moot. I will only use the kinds of teachings that have been presented to me. Like with the people who'll preach homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, by the same right I can criticise them for working on the Sabbath (suggesting they should be put to death) or criticise them for wearing wool. I can also bring up laws surround rape and marriage. In fact, people turn to one book to tell us why adultery is a sin and quote the law on adultery but then ignore the fact a couple of lines down in the same passage it tells rapists to pay the father of their victims 50 shekels of silver for marriage and forbidding either to ever divorce, as though the rapist violated his property and he's buying it off of him as compensation. People will bring up quotes from Jesus to tell us that that Old Testament is relevent, to tell us that Jesus isn't here to abolish the old law but to enforce it and even makes specific reference to Moses' law, which would be 5 extremely dark books in the bible. Sorry, I don't have the time to go quote digging, but if you would like verification, please say so and I will find some time to do so.

This is what I see Christians preachings, this is what I see them quoting. I also see Christians treating the bible like a book of fables, but finding truth on a more philosophical level and for it to be a representation of God made by men 2,000 years ago. I see a lot of variation and frequently opposing views will manage to find biblical backup to their argument.

The back up I use when making statements about Christianity aren't based on my interpretation, but the interpretations given to me. In fact, I don't think I've ever stated my interpretation to a Christian.

So for people to be able to validate their own claims, their claims need to be able to stand out against the claims of other Christians. Essentially people need to convince me why they're right and why millions of other Christians are wrong. There's around 38,000 sects, so there's a lot of competition as far as ideas go and some stand on opposite extremes. See, I don't even need to quote the bible to try and argue that as a source of factual information it's extremely unreliable. We're looking at a source of 'information' that has so much variety as far as how it's interpreted, it's ridiculous. Historians generally have a lot more to go on before trying to make factual statements and even then what we read into history isn't necessarily 100% accurate because we're looking at fractions of history and we are sometimes left to fill in the gaps with some expectations, but for what we do have in terms of evidence is quite compelling and sometimes when new evidence is present, we may change what we think. We can't just rely on a storybook either, for example, I've got a copy of the Vinland Sagas, it's a great story about the Viking discovery of America, but the story wasn't really verified until Viking remains were found in America. Yet, we can't be sure if the story tells it exactly as it happened, information is no doubt left out, so we don't have a complete picture of the history, but there's things we can verify and people reading the Vinland Sagas aren't so divided over what's fact and what we don't know to be fact, the bible on the other hand, people struggle between what's 'actually happened' and what's allegory.

One Christian told me the story of creation is allegory and another has told me it's a factual account of real events. So I ask, "what's it based on" at least the former Christian could argue from science that it's simply impossible, so it must be allegorical. However, it would still be baseless because the people who wrote the passage may have intended it to not be allegorical, just because it isn't factual doesn't mean it's allegorical.

Take the Vinland sagas, if I were to say, "it's a story about how the Vikings discovered America" and somebody were to say, "based on what?" at least I could correspond evidence with the events in the story. Without the evidence, one could suggest it's fictional, why not? The people telling the story might want it to be about adventure to bring glory to the men in the story and well, it could easily work like a fishmerman's tale. Of course, there could have been no islands discovered at all. Heck it could have been a story to inspire the sense of adventure in children to encourage them to learn to be sailors to join their naval forces when they grow older. However, thanks to evidence, we can safely say there's accuracy in the story.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2013, 01:54:34 PM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Thanks Aaron,Since you were not happy with my responses the first time, maybe I can attempt to answer them again.1. I do not know all the Old Testament Laws and it is beyond my scope to accurately answer what God did or did not do. I apologize for know knowing everything God does.2. I have never studied subjective or objective morality. Perhaps you can give me your thoughts to educate me.3. What are the Mosaic Laws? Here is a link you can study. http://www.ehow.com/info_10022255_were-mosaic-laws.html

I hope this helps you.

Given that the bible is the book that you base your beliefs and morality on, I would've thought you read/studied it a little more carefully. I would've thought it'd be important to read it and make sure you understand what god said or didn't say in it. After all, don't want to take any chances and go to hell because of a misunderstanding on your part, right?

Given that you are the topic starter, I would've thought you'd have a fair amount of familiarity with the old testament laws. After all, why start a topic if you're not prepared to discuss it? Likewise, I'd thought you'd have an take on the subjective/objective morality arguement, considering how important it is to this topic (if god's morality is 'objective', then what is he doing giving laws that applies only to a small group of people for a small time period?)

Instead of continuing the subject further, It sounds like you need to take the time to read the old testament parts of the bible. Read it so you know about the subject that you brought up. Read it so that you're able to counterpoint the arguements being brought up.

Thanks Aaron,Since you were not happy with my responses the first time, maybe I can attempt to answer them again.1. I do not know all the Old Testament Laws and it is beyond my scope to accurately answer what God did or did not do. I apologize for know knowing everything God does.2. I have never studied subjective or objective morality. Perhaps you can give me your thoughts to educate me.3. What are the Mosaic Laws? Here is a link you can study. http://www.ehow.com/info_10022255_were-mosaic-laws.html

I hope this helps you.

Given that the bible is the book that you base your beliefs and morality on, I would've thought you read/studied it a little more carefully. I would've thought it'd be important to read it and make sure you understand what god said or didn't say in it. After all, don't want to take any chances and go to hell because of a misunderstanding on your part, right?

Given that you are the topic starter, I would've thought you'd have a fair amount of familiarity with the old testament laws. After all, why start a topic if you're not prepared to discuss it? Likewise, I'd thought you'd have an take on the subjective/objective morality arguement, considering how important it is to this topic (if god's morality is 'objective', then what is he doing giving laws that applies only to a small group of people for a small time period?)

Instead of continuing the subject further, It sounds like you need to take the time to read the old testament parts of the bible. Read it so you know about the subject that you brought up. Read it so that you're able to counterpoint the arguements being brought up.

Again you miss the point. As a Christian, I do not have to be familiar with OT law. I also do not have to worry about going to hell because of a misunderstanding. This is not the way Christianity works, and I challenge you to find any reputable pastor and/or scholar to agree with your point. Seriously, as a Christian, I find most of your arguments senseless. I actually got the idea for the thread after hearing Bill Maher say something like: "your a Christian, hey if you see your neighbor working on Sunday, kill him." You must admit, this is asinine. Is this the best argument he has? What does this have to do with Jesus rising form the dead? Also on this site, atheists have asked me about shellfish. Again, what is your point? I think it's a foolish argument and does not make atheists appear to be forthright debaters.Your morality argument is just as bad. "What kind of morality do you have?" I don't know, what kind do you have? What kind does he have? Again, it's an atheistic game you play- admit it.

Jesus was a Jew and so were the disciples, They followed the system of festivals as prescribed by the OT including a seder before jesus died (or juts a meal if you follow John!) The jerusalem Christians carried on worshipping as Jews but added Jesus to those they worshipped. They went to the Temple and so on.

The big split comes at Acts 15 when Paul asks the Jerusalem Church how he should treat his new gentile converts. Were they to be subject the law of Moses and by circumcised and follow the Law? the result, as we can read restricted them to not eating meat offered to idols and refraining them from eating blood. Thus, for gentiles from that time, these two are the only matters of the Jewish Law that they are to obey.

So, to get to your original question, the examples you give are not relevant to Gentile Christians - though this is not the import of Jesus who seemed to think all the Laws were to be obeyed. So, a question for you, Holybuckets,

why do we even have a holy book with the oT in? If all the rules and restrictions in the OT are not needed and if the NT has everything one needs, why not just dispense with the OT.

Why do Chrisitians keep quoting from the 10 Commandments and other of the Laws in the Torah when Christians these days, and everyone else too apart from Jews, are not constrained by these Laws?

Good and deep questions for sure. Here's a link that may help answer some of your questions:

The link is not particularly helpful. 1. We do not know if it represents your view; 2. It is titled, "DO CHRISTIANS NEED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?" not "Do Christians need the Old Testament?" 3. The writer seems confused

Quote

There Paul is telling us that the old life that we all inherited from Adam (this life of independence from God) ended when we believed in Christ's death -- so we cannot go on unchanged![...] Paul says, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Romans 6:1 RSV). God forbid! Certainly not! It can't be because we have entered into his death.

Notice the strange and unnatural use of English. When this happens, you can be sure that the speaker doesn't know what it means, so he gives words a "special meaning" -> Entering in to Jesus's death seems a bit strange when (a) he didn't die (how can you kill a god?)

If you manage to struggle through the link, you will still be none the wiser, all of it is based upon your accepting all the claims without any proof at all.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Christianity was not founded by Jesus. It was founded by Paul. Given that his conversion has been historically dated at 31 ce to 36 ce, there is no chance at all that any of the books of the New Testament had been written at that time, or even by the time of his death in 67 ce. The earliest, Mark, was written in 70 ce. That means any references Paul made to religious writings (Scripture) could only have referred to the Old Testament, the Jewish Torah. So 2 Timothy 3:16 could only have been referring to that, and not to the unwritten Gospels.

By the way, holybuckets, you ignored my earlier post. I would appreciate a reply.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.